Believe What You Like But Know What You Must

People are free to be consumed with contemplating their existence, their origins, the origins of the universe, supreme beings, controllers of destiny or anything else. But solving "the Great Mystery" is neither a requirement of being Ohnkwe Ohnwe nor does it provide a path to righteousness. I maintain that spirituality does not require faith or the leaps that faith requires but rather awareness. If it helps to believe that "God has a plan" and we just must have faith that "He" knows what "He" is doing, then walk that path. My interest is in taking the mystery out of life by pointing to the obvious that is ignored everyday in the midst of fanatical ideology and the sometimes not too subtle influences of promoting beliefs over knowledge. I have said it before: “beliefs are what you are told, knowledge is what you experience”. I support a culture that prepares us to receive knowledge and to live a life with purpose. I am certainly not suggesting there is only one way to do that.

"Let's Talk Native..." on ESPN Sports Radio 1520AM Buffalo

Click the LTN Banner above for a link to the "Let's Talk Native…" page on ESPN 1520AM. Catch the latest show and the many before them

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

On June 2, 2014, every "member" of the Seneca
Nation of Indians (SNI) received a letter from his/her President announcing the
launch of the Seneca Nation's new Enhanced Tribal Identification Card (ETC)
program. The announcement of the program was couched in terms of preventing
terrorism, strengthening border security and facilitating ease of border crossing/travel
as well promoting a partnership between the SNI and the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) through their Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA).

The letter begins with the declaration that "the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) requires U.S. and Canadian travelers,
including Seneca Nation members, to present a passport or other WHTI-approved
document that denotes identity and citizenship when entering the U.S. at land
or sea borders while traveling within the western hemisphere."

Well let's clear up a few things right from the start. They
say WHTI, I say WHITIE. And in spite of this letter's contention that these
WHITIE-compliant ETCs are designed to "continue the protection of our
sovereign rights," this could not be farther from the truth. This WHITIE requirement
is a violation of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a direct abrogation on our sovereignty, as
well as a violation of our inherent rights and laws of nature. Note that I didn't
even bother to bring up their BS, double-talking, land stealing treaties.

There are almost too many problems with this thing to cover
it here, despite the fact there are really only five requirements for WHITIE
compliance. But before I get into those, let me hit a few huge shortcomings of
these cards and problems with the program. First, although it is stated pretty
clearly, it’s easy to overlook the most obvious flaw — this will not help with
travel into Canada or any place else. The WHITIE documents are for
"entering the U.S...." The SNI Application for an ETC says it even
more clearly — "An ETC can be used...to
return to the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and some countries in the Caribbean at
land/sea border entries. However, Canada will not accept an ETC...to enter into
Canada." So these things are
not for traveling from home. They are only to prevent DHS from denying our return.

The SNI application has significant violations of privacy and
goes well beyond basic identification information:

The applicant also has to sign a Confidentiality Statement
that acknowledges "legal penalties associated with... providing false
information" yet is provided no confidentiality agreement from the SNI,
DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection or whoever the WHITIE guys are. In fact
the MOA doesn't even detail the use of this information but rather only
mentions "validation of the Seneca Nation ETC information as specified in
the separate service level agreement developed between the parties."

These are among some of the issues that jump off the pages of
these documents without even getting into the WHITIE requirements. An
expiration date seems benign enough but "mandatory facial image
capture" sounds a little creepy. This is for compatibility with federal
facial recognition programs and databases. The fact that, according to the MOA,
the SNI clerk will retain this "capture" even if no card is issued
just adds to the creepiness. Beyond basic requirements for counterfeit protection
these WHITIE cards are required to have a Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) utilizing
Optical Character Recognition technology and an RFID chip that will allow
"unique identifiers" to be acquired; in the case of the RFID chip,
without the card ever having to come out of your pocket. These Unique
Identifiers will include digital photographs and other personal information and
can be acquired by readers merely in your vicinity.

But clearly the kicker in this whole program is the U.S. or
Canadian citizenship requirement. The applicant MUST provide proof of "recognized
U.S. or Canadian citizenship to be approved and the WHITIE card must display
that citizenship prominently on its face. This requirement is essentially
tantamount to saying to any of us that if we manage to step over one of the
imaginary lines of the U.S. that we cannot return without a declaration of
citizenship to the U.S. or Canada.

This clearly is not an oversight. In fact, in the SNI ETC
Application the first note under the "PROOF
OF "RECOGNIZED" U.S. OR CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP" is: *Note
that in submitting evidence of "recognized U.S. citizenship", the ETC
applicant is not admitting to/accepting U.S. or Canadian citizenship and is
first and foremost a citizen of the Seneca Nation."

Well that fixes everything. NOT! Now what member of the SNI
legal team thought that adding this note in the application would negate the
obvious implication of the WHITIE requirement? The MOA clearly states that
"Nation staff shall in every case confirm that the applicant is recognized
as a U.S. or Canadian citizen." *Note that it does not say that the
applicant may qualify for U.S. or Canadian citizenship or meet to requirements
for such. Again, this is not just a requirement for getting a WHITIE
card but it's a requirement that it is actually stated on the WHITIE card.

I can't help but interpret this buried and anything but a
legitimate disclaimer as an attempt to dupe the applicant. This is just
devious. This is not a statement promulgated by the Seneca Nation to the U.S. State
Department or anyone who would ever see these ETCs. And it certainly won't be
among the card's "Unique Identifiers" broadcasting from their RFID
chips. Where were these legal wizards, who clearly saw the problem, with their
challenges to WHITIE in the first place? Where was just one of these overpriced
consultants when these fear mongering, 9-11 obsessed, opportunistic WHITIE supremacists
put these racist requirements together? No nation can de-nationalize another or
force their citizenship upon a non-consenting people. These WHITIE cards are
not Seneca Nation identification cards. They are federal IDs with tribal logos
and enrollment numbers.

We need to resist these WHITIE cards. The SNI boasts, in bold
print in the letters addressed to "Dear Seneca Nation Member," (not
Citizen), The Seneca Nation is just the
third Indian tribe in the country to issue ETCs. In almost 5 years since
this latest attempt at forced assimilation, only two other "Indian
tribes" were gullible enough to go through with this?

Well, let's hope the Seneca people, the Onondowaka, are
smarter than their administration lawyers are or at least smarter than their
lawyers think they are.

Monday, June 9, 2014

"Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shift
from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of
Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise
and fall in our democratic faith." — Felix S. Cohen, 1953

There is little
question that what the white man found when he washed up on our shores was a
free and fearless people. But rather than learn our ways and study how a people
could live without kings, queens, courts and prisons or slavery, discrimination
and class warfare, the church — the very thing that created many of these institutions
and practices — was relied upon to spread all of it to a free world.

The Doctrine of
Christian Discovery, which has plenty of foundation in the Bible, got its first
shot as a stand-alone church doctrine with Portugal's invasion of West Africa
in the mid-15th century. A pope's decree that a Christian nation
could claim the lands and possessions of a pagan people and reduce them to "perpetual
servitude" would begin four centuries of the African slave trade. In 1493,
another pope would lay the foundation for all "Christian nations" to
begin the rape of our own Turtle Island and secure the racist Doctrine of
Christian Discovery as the law of the white man. In fact, it would be called the
"White Man's Burden."

Certainly, bits and
pieces of our cultures, philosophies and traditions were borrowed when the need
to shift colonial powers and authority would arise. But what was woven into the
American fabric was only done so in rhetoric and not in practice. Laws of
Nature, all created equal, governance by consent of the governed, inalienable rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; these not only sounded good,
they were good. These along with the concept that individuals would be placed
in the service of their people rather than as lords over them were, in fact,
the way of our people, a way that allowed our people to thrive for thousands of
years.

"The most consistent theme in the
descriptions penned about the New World was amazement at the Indians’ personal
liberty, in particular their freedom from rulers and from social classes based
on ownership of property. For the first time the French and the British became
aware of the possibility of living in social harmony and prosperity without the
rule of a king." — Jack Weatherford, Indian
Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Changed the World, 1988.

As the fake American history crumbles with
more access to truth and our abilities to tell our own truths, many have begun
to learn about the atrocities of the 500 years of the American Holocaust. And
while acknowledgement of the wrongs and perhaps some attempts to right them is
a good place to start, what's missed in all this is Felix Cohen’s warning.

Cohen's analogy of us to the miner's canary
was not about saving the canary. It was about saving the miners. It is the
white man with his "burden" and all that Cohen was warning. It is
more than just an analogy to suggest that the atrocities committed against our
people paved the way for the poison gases of Auschwitz and those now affecting
climate change. Raping our children and our women are crimes against humanity
but raping our Mother Earth is a crime against Creation. And it's not just all
of man that will be affected but all of creation. But let's be honest, most of
Creation will not care less about toppled buildings, crumbled roads and flooded
homes. Only man — with his attempt to defy nature — is in real trouble when
nature strikes back.

Cohen realized that in our people — the
treatment of and relationships with us — lay a barometer for mankind. The fall
in the white man's "democratic faith" was based on an ignorant
majority that could see its way to unspeakable crimes against the people
closest to Creation and never realize that what kills the canary also kills the
miner.

But, in reality, we are still free. It is
the white man that fell to Christendom, with emphasis on the "dom" or
domination. We have lost an inconceivable number of our people over five
centuries to extermination, removal, assimilation and termination. We are still
losing loved ones to poverty, alcohol, drugs and suicide. And we continue to
lose many to assimilation, including those finding comfort in the colonial
systems that continue to oppress our people. But we are not all lost.

There are many among us that continue to say the Ohenton Karihwatehkwen.
We acknowledge our relationship to Creation and bow to no man. We know we are
free because our minds are free. We are not the caged canaries of the white man.
We are a free people. And while many bound within the colonial systems poke
those of our people, who were willing or succumbed to be their canaries, with
their sticks, and begin to question their own fate, more and more will look to
the free and the brave and desire to be among us. They'll pray that we are not
those "merciless savages" Thomas Jefferson wrote about and that we
still hold certain truths to be self-evident — even if they could not.

Friday, May 30, 2014

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) wrapped
up its 13th session this week. Thousands of representatives of UN member
states, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Indigenous Peoples
Organizations (IPOs) as well approved participants from academia and the media.
The latter was how I got in. For two weeks hundreds of speakers offered
statements and interventions, many of them from the Native people of Turtle
Island.

These interventions offered a full range of complaints
against Canada and the U.S. on issues including murdered and missing women,
environmental crimes, land claims, land use, poverty and prominent racist
policies very much still in full effect, including the Doctrine of Christian
Discovery and the wholesale whitewashing of our children through the adoption
agencies and policies of both countries. There was plenty of recounting of the
past but for the most part all the issues were contemporary. Today! Now!

UN member states, such as the U.S., Canada and many more, had
representatives present. Those representatives had names you will never know,
offering statements not worth repeating that amounted to little more than lip
service to a UN event and focus that some countries wish didn't exist. No
elected officials showed in New York; no senators or members of Congress, no ambassadors
and certainly no one who really needed to hear directly from Native voices in
an international forum.

Now this is not to say that members of, perhaps, the most
dysfunctional Congress in the history of the United States weren't making news
on the BIG issues. No, in fact, as participants at the UNPFII were hammering
out strategies on how to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) — essentially how to hold nation states to this
minimum international standard — 50 United States senators decided to cut a
page out of the New York Oneida Ray Halbritter's playbook.

These 50 senators — who I am sure were absolutely oblivious
to the UNDRIP, the Permanent Forum and, most certainly, the Doctrine of
Christian Discovery — decided to pull a publicity stunt to distract from their
own failings. In about as partisan an act as possible, 50 Democratic senators
decided to lend their names to a letter that attempts to correct what they view
as "a matter of tribal sovereignty." I know, this sounds serious,
right? And if I stop right here, you have got to be thinking, alright, they're
scolding the states for violating our sovereignty or the tax department for
unlawfully trying to fleece our people and businesses or even the State Department
over passports or IDs. You might even be thinking they are admitting their
failure to address land claims or correct any number of the other racist
policies being addressed right then at the United Nations. But you'd be wrong.

No, these 50 elite politicians sent a letter to the NFL. And
unlike Mr. Halbritter who bought his way into this 30-year debate over the
Washington D.C. football team name, these guys just had a staffer stamp their name
on a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. But again unlike Mr. Halbritter,
who quite successfully deflected all attention from his "leadership",
including his destruction of the Oneida land claim and selling out to New York
State on gaming, tobacco, fuel and taxes by transforming himself into the
"Washington R-word" slayer, these guys not only hurt the cause with lending
their dismal approval rating to it, but they also come across as somewhere
between hypocritical and just plain silly.

First of all, why only 50? Why would the Democrats not ask a
single Republican to sign? This just lends itself to the notion that it was a
political stunt. Next, of course, is the timing. How could they ignore all that
was happening and being discussed in New York at the UNPFII only to join in on what
to call a bunch of men in tights? Another issue is the letter itself and the
complete lack of responsibility these senators have for the U.S. having to tip
toe around the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Step up.
Read the damn thing! And stop violating it!

The letter also seems to ignore the fact that the team’s name
has always been a racial slur. It was as racist 80 years ago as it is today.
This gang of 50 suggests that because a racist NBA team owner recently got
taken to the woodshed for being caught on tape saying very disturbing comments
about black people, that it is now time
for the Washington football team to abandon its racial slur moniker. It's
almost as though the team name has just gotten noticed. Must be all that Oneida
money. They could have at least been a little more honest and said that in
light of the L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s crime and punishment that
they can no longer continue to ignore the team name for the nation's capital.

The letter states, "This is a matter of tribal
sovereignty." No, it's not! This name and all use of Native mascots and
images are racist. It is not a violation of sovereignty. The state and federal
governments do that — not sports teams. It is insulting and perhaps even a
crime. If someone carries a likeness of RGIII's head in a noose into a football
stadium, I could see someone catching a hate crime charge but the Philadelphia
fan that takes an impaled "Indian head" to Washington football games
and Chicago hockey games actually gets praised and put on TV. But even if it is
a crime or a civil rights violation it is not a "matter of tribal
sovereignty." That just tells me, again, how clueless these 50 senators
are.

This letter also attempts to cast the Congress in stark
contrast to the NFL which supports this racist slur by listing the great
protections that the Congress has legislated for us. They seem to forget that
every law they cited was to counter racist governmental policy and actually
continues it by creating federal regulations for this "protection"
rather than ever really recognizing our sovereignty. That is, by the way,
"a matter of tribal sovereignty."

I agree with these senators that this team name should be
changed and, in fact, all use of Native mascots should end. This all comes from
the specific racism held against Native people and it is certainly emblematic
of the racist policies of state and federal governments. But perhaps the
Washington football team should keep the name, if only to demonstrate the
blatant evidence of the racism that Washington D.C. — the nation's capital — still
holds toward Native people.

A lot more than just a football team name needs to change in
Washington. Respect Native sovereignty and stop the policies of assimilation.
Oh, yeah. And change the name.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

After spending the week in
New York City attending the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
and listening to dozens of speakers offering their interventions to the nearly
2,000 delegates and representatives, I have heard asked repeatedly a few
burning questions.

The first is: “What do want
from the UN or the international community?” Well, that's a loaded question
because there is what we want and what
we expect. Plain and simple, many
want action. For me, I come back to the warning about being careful what you
wish for. I just want some attention paid to our issues and to shame those
nations that continue to commit acts of genocide against us — plain and simple.

My expectations are low for
anything to have much in the way of fast results. Death may be quick but
survival is slow, particularly if we are talking about the survival of an
entire people and simply not a generation of them. I give less credit and
authority to those who are touted as leaders. I see this stage as an
opportunity to produce credible testimony to impact the court of public opinion
more than heads of state.

The speakers were from across
the globe but the messages were repeated over and over again — loss of land,
assimilation, abuse of women, health, poverty and environment. Land claims and
environmental protections are the issues that concern the colonial powers most
because these directly affect their bottom line as it relates to their
economies. So the second question that is quick to be asked by the mainstream
media is: “What do you want to see come from land claims settlements? This
question is quickly followed up by: “Surely you don't want all the land back
after all this time? Do you?”

Some of the Indigenous
people are quick to respond, "Oh, no. We wouldn't do that to you!"
But they never quite get around to answering just what they would like to see
as a resolution to long-standing battles over land. In 1922, the Chairman of
the New York State Indian Commission, Edward Everett, wrote in his report to
the State Legislature of the unlikelihood that Native people would have ever
shared lands had we known what the white man would do with it.

Ninety-two years later, as
we observe economic collapse, aged or decrepit infrastructure and man-induced
climate change, all I can say is that we love what you have done with the
place. And this goes to the heart of another question: “What would we do with title to lost lands?” My answer
begins with another question; this one to the people living and/or working on
our lands. “How are you doing under state and federal oversight? Over taxed?
Roads and schools in the crapper? Unemployment? Environment? How is that
working for you?"

Considering the bleak
outlook for even the immediate future, I would not shy away from the assertion
of Native stewardship and sovereignty on much of this conflicted land. But the
fact of the matter is that many of our people never quite get past the racial
bias at the core of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. And even with
repudiation and clear condemnation from the international community, this
remains at the foundation of U.S. and Canadian "Indian law" and is
still being used by courts today. With no clear path for reclamation, most of
our people never look that far down the road and certainly never develop comprehensive
land use plans. Perhaps a higher level of discontent with the state and feds
will pave the way for the "clean slate" approach to land use and just
one or two examples of business success stories and higher quality of life,
would certainly change the conversation. But these can't happen if we don't
really have a vision for our future.

If one thing is learned from
hearing so much testimony on Indigenous issues, it is that capitalism and
imperialism got it wrong and buying into their failed systems for modeling our
own is just absurd. We need to assert our presence, fight for our regulatory
advantages and market these as building blocks to regional development.

I am extremely disappointed
to say that no one brought up trade and commerce as a specific area of concern
for this world stage. Not one Native voice took the opportunity to cite the
articles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that
specifically support our inherent rights to trade, commerce and our own
economic development. The absence of that conversation only adds to the
question as to what we are there for. If not there, where? If not then, when?

Minister of Human Rights
Purifacione Quisinbine told me more than 20 years ago at the UN that we needed
trade relations. That, she said, was the expression of sovereignty. She, like
me, viewed treaties as weak, one-sided documents. Contracts and invoices
represented equitability and it establishes relationships, not just between
governments but also between peoples.

Many good and important
issues got well warranted attention on this world stage but the real life
impacts to local and global economies caused by racist dogma cannot and should
not be down played. Two weeks, once a year with a few more annual events thrown
in is not enough to affect change. These issues have to be a drumbeat that
becomes deafening with international attention and takes full advantage of the
media attention that comes with it.

Our small corners of the
once vast lands which we tend to need to be a reminder to all those who are
growing discontented with their lives — of what once was. We really don't like what
you've done with the place.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Well, now that everyone can feel better about their battle and stance on unacceptable racism in the wake giving the old "what's for" to Donald Sterling, the racist owner of the NBA's Los Angeles Clippers, we can all go back to settling in with the institutional racism that keeps Daniel Snyder, the equally racist owner of the NFL's Washington R-word, warm and safe at night. I know "spic,” "wetback,” chink" and the R-word still can appear in print but if the N-word can't, then, in my book either can the R-word.

Of course, it is institutional racism — the team, its logo, merchandise and name are trademark-protected, NFL-licensed and owned by a white guy. Not to mention the fact that most Americans are perfectly comfortable with the NFL franchise in their nation's capital bearing a racial slur for a name.

Now I won’t go off on another rant about how the dictionary defines the word or its history or even the damage the use of the word does to our youth. The simple truth is that a significant number of Native people are offended by it, yet most Americans are only offended by the fact that we are offended. That is to say, how dare we be offended by tens of thousands of mostly white people in red face, feathers, war paint, “costumes” and in an alcoholic stupor making a mockery of Native people? Not only is it not just this team or even just this sport. It's several teams in almost all sports. And it's not just the fans that are offensive. The opponents, sportswriters and TV producers can't resist the clichés or most outrageous comments or visuals. The Eagle's fan that brings the knife-impaled Indian head to the Washington games with “Red-Skin, Dead-Skin” written on the face, comes to mind.

But that's not the really bad part. Granted, this is all plenty offensive and SHOULD disturb more than just a number of Native people but that is not my ultimate problem with institutional racism. A team name or a mascot may seem trivial but what it really represents is the notion that a dominant society can appropriate a name or an image or even a racial slur against a people and normalize it in that culture.

The first impulse is to suggest this misappropriation "honors" us. Of course, that falls flat the moment we claim that we don't feel honored or that we are insulted by it. Then we are told that it's just a team name and that it is NOT meant to represent us. The best part is when they tell us that we aren't those people anyway — that we are no longer those "grand kings of the forests and the plains." I have heard Native people criticizing the mascot issue told to “go back to the reservation and drink a few.” Some honor, huh?

This acceptance of appropriating an image and then attempting to separate the affected people from it has consequences. It allows racist laws, policies and actions to continue year after year, decade after decade and century after century with no guilt and no real consequence to the dominant culture but with devastating impact on the affected people. Poverty, depression, suicide, alcoholism and little hope or prospect for the future is not caused by mascots. That's ridiculous! It's caused by the underlying racism.

You might ask how can this be? Where does racism become institutionalized or normalized? The simple answer starts with the church. The Doctrine of Christian Discovery established the idea that a Christian people could claim the lands and possessions of pagan people, that a “godless” people could be subjugated to slavery and ownership. The courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court then codifies this concept into U.S. law and equates discovery with conquest. The establishment of the "ward-custodian" relationship draws a straight line from 15th-century popes to 19th-century judges. And when racism is both entrenched in church and legal doctrine that IS institutional racism.

This institutional racism accepts racist mascots, team names and logos. And this racism is government driven and societally acceptable. The notion that the dominant society owns us; and that the once proud, brave, free and noble savage is gone, sucked into American history, has become the false narrative that is American history. And what are left is a people deemed wards of the state and barely a resemblance to what America now claims for naming their weapons and sports teams.

And what do wards of the state need? Obviously, just welfare, a check or a budget line. Wards of the state don't need an economy, they don't need opportunity and they certainly don't need United Nations protection. Not in the good ole USA or in Oh Canada.

Well, that's not the way we see it and, interestingly enough, neither does the rest of the world. After half a millennium of our resistance to racist church dogma and court bigotry the United Nations declared to the world in 2007 that:

"all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust."

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also includes 46 articles that form the minimum standard the member nations insist should be respected.

So while American and Canadian societies hang on to the last vestiges of their state-sponsored racism, even as they declare themselves morally superior to the rest of the world, they remain clueless to the social advances all around them.

We are not wards of the state. We have asserted our distinction, our rights and our sovereignty as we have begun to rebuild our economies. We fight for our lands and our resources. We have brought back our cultures and languages from the brink of extinction from acts of genocide and we are protecting the planet. We always knew we were right and had the right to do these things and now the rest of the world agrees with us. We know this fight is ours and it is a battle of education. But perhaps with international pressure we can open some minds.

Racism is ignorance. Mascots are racist and, more importantly, so are the policies that discriminate against and hold Native people down.

I believe Native mascots and team names must go but the racist policies are a bigger issue for me. I'd rather use the absurd racism that everyone sees to shine a light on what is hidden in plain sight. The singular concentration by some on mascots makes us seem shallow and superficial. And the worse thing that could happen would be for us to lose the battle to educate and enlighten people about racism yet force a name change or a ban on mascots leaving the dominant society and their leadership more entrenched in the racism with their harmful policies more firmly intact.

Today, both the U.S. and Canada are actively waging a campaign of forced assimilation against Native people in direct violation of the UNDRIP. Canada's Bill C-10 and various U.S. state and federal laws, regulations and policies are attempting to criminalize our trade and our people. Protecting our women and children and creating a future for our people require that we protect our land, assert our sovereignty and create hope and opportunity now and for the future.

I, for one, am prepared to use the UN or any international stage whenever possible to garner support and shame, if necessary, the U.S. and Canada into change. And who knows? Maybe we'll knock off an "R-word".

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

On May 12, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues (UNPFII) will begin its 13th session at the United Nations in New York
City. The session will run for two weeks and cover a broad range of topics.

The event is not open to the public. Only confirmed and
registered NGO and IPO representatives are allowed to participate. However, as
a UN accredited member of the media, I will be there, too. Yeah, that's right.
Two Row Times columnist and radio show host John Kane will be there having the
conversations that may or may not be welcome.

Now I'm not among the starry-eyed devotees of the UN. I am a
skeptic although I appreciate the good intentions of such a body and even the
nice words assembled in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP). But intentions are not actions and the UNDRIP clearly identifies
itself as the minimum standards that the world holds for the rights of Indigenous
peoples. And while I understand the most common denominator for the nations of
the world would almost have to accept a minimum standard, this Mohawk certainly
doesn't.

Of course, the U.S. and Canada, the last UN nations to
conditionally endorse the Declaration, could not even accept this minimum
standard at face value but rather suggested they could only support the "aspirations"
of the document provided that its articles do not conflict with U.S. or
Canadian law, which kind of misses the point. Uh...if your laws conflict with
the UNDRIP, which they certainly do, as well as your policies, propaganda,
altered history, religions, schools and state sponsored racism, then you
obviously are not really supporting what the rest of entire world has endorsed.

So why go? Simple. Shame.

I have made it my mission to encourage conversations on
Native issues. The more conversations that are had, the brighter the spotlight
shines on those issues. If it is nothing else, I see the UN as a grand stage
for conversations. But because the U.S. and Canada fail miserably by almost any
standard for compliance with the UNDRIP and because they have no intentions of
complying, our best recourse is the "court of public opinion" and
shame on that grand stage.

One of the biggest mistakes we make in fighting for our
inherent rights is treating them as gifts from our oppressors. Our rights are
neither "treaty rights" nor are they UN Declaration rights. They are
unalienable, inherent and original. Treaties may acknowledge them or even
suggest protection of them but they do not grant them. The UNDRIP makes no claim
to be the origins of our rights either. This declaration simply reiterates much
of the UN Declaration on Human Rights with certain other obvious international
standards such as "free, prior and informed consent" from people
affected by the actions of another. The UNDRIP recognizes rights. It does not
establish them.

Our job begins with asserting our inalienable rights based on
our inherent sovereignty. The language in their treaties may be used to
demonstrate and remind those that would violate our rights how many times they
acknowledged their limitations and just how little we ever really ceded to them
regarding our rights and liberties. The same goes for the UNDRIP. But unlike
all those treaties that our people were coerced into, for access to our lands,
the Declaration is not a quid pro quo
or a this for a that. It is simply a minimum standard. But it is pointless if
it is unknown or never cited.

So while our job begins with asserting our rights, it is also
incredibly important to specifically cite how and where our rights are being
violated within the context of the UNDRIP and our inherent sovereignty. We need
to make the violators of those rights painfully clear of the international
standards they are ignoring and alert the international community of the
violations and impacts, as well. There are 46 articles and a preamble loaded
with affirmations, acknowledgements, concerns, beliefs and specific points of
recognition to which we should hold the non-Native governments and do so with
every intent of leveling shame and embarrassment on these U.S. and Canadian hypocrites.

The opening day of the UNPFII, among other issues, is
scheduled to cover sexual health and reproductive rights. With more than 1,000
missing and murdered Native women in Canada alone and the highest rate of
childbirth mortality rates on the continent, how can the U.S. and Canada not be
shamed?

The second day will focus on the impacts of the Doctrine of
Christian Discovery. This can't be just a study of past atrocities but must
include the ongoing ones, as well. The U.S. codified this racist doctrine in
1823 and it is still cited to this day to diminish everything from claims to
our stolen lands to our right to trade and develop our own economies. This
can't just be about condemning ugly history as though it's all better now. It
isn't! The suggestion that our "discovery" by Christian nations
equated to conquest is not just wrong today. It was just as wrong when the
house of cards that is "federal Indian law" was built on it then. The
UNDRIP should assist us in securing more equitable remedies, not just for past
grievances but current conflicts, too. The U.S. and Canada can keep their
"houses of cards" but if they don't want it toppled they should keep
us out of it. There is no shame in fairly and respectfully resolving conflict
but any nation claiming superiority based on race or religion should be truly
embarrassed.

Redress, land disputes and land claims, Indigenous children
and Indigenous youth, and actual implementation of the UNDRIP are other
scheduled topics for discussion. And I will take every opportunity I can to
bend the ear of anyone that will listen to address the most critical issues to
our people — poverty today and bleak prospects for the future.

All the access to sacred sites in the world can't fix poverty
and self-esteem. All the special days, decades and declarations the world over
will not secure a future for our unborn faces. We don't need world courts or
international sanctions. We need real international relations that support our
trade, our travel and our autonomy. We need interface between the voices that
call for our right to be respected and protected, and those whose laws fly in
the face of those calls.

Let's
see what a little "Let's Talk Native...with John Kane" at the UN
stirs up.

I have to begin my column this week by stating up front that
I am Haudenosaunee. I support traditional governance based on the Kaianerehkowa
and a culture grounded with the Ohenton Karihwatehkwen (Words Before All Else)
and the Tiohateh (the Two Row Wampum). I must emphasize that it is traditional
governance I support rather than "traditional government."

There are those who would suggest that the Haudenosaunee have
existed with all these things firmly in place in an unbroken testament to our
strength and durability as a people. I wish that were true. I wish our people
had continued to reject the Bible and the booze. I wish they always held our
women in the reverence that we like to claim. I wish we protected and preserved
our lands and language for our future generations. I wish we maintained the
concepts of governance by the people and the understanding that people who were
recognized for the best characteristics were placed as honorable servants to
their people rather than rulers placed above them. But most of these wishes
would bring me back several hundred years.

We lost our way several times long before the first white man
ever appeared before us. Our Thanksgivings are reminders of those times and of
the time we came back together to right ourselves. The Kaianerehkowa represents
the last time wise men among us reminded us who we were and what we were
created for. In it are the descriptions of the characteristics we were to
strive for. No, it didn't say don't drink, gamble or dance. It placed honor on
a man who proved himself as a husband, a father and an uncle. What that means
should be self-evident. The Kaianerehkowa lays out the process to maintain
peace and resolve conflicts. It lays out checks and balances and defies any
notion that any of us have authority or higher standing than any others of us.
It also made clear that all those things that went into the Kaianerehkowa
should be retold and recited each year in every Haudenosaunee community and
recited at a gathering of all 49 families of the Haudenosaunee and any new
families that joined to enjoy the peace under the Kaianerehkowa every five
years.

This basic call for maintenance through constant education
and "removal of the dust" that accumulates with time surely could
have prevented where we now find ourselves. This summer such an event is
planned for the Seneca community of Tonawanda and at this point there may be no
community in more need. But Tonawanda is certainly not the only community in
need. Between assimilated elected councils with pitiful voter turnout and no
connection to our culture or what defines us, and councils of
"chiefs" that claim to be "traditional" with a twisted view
of their authority or privilege, our communities are barely recognizable as
Haudenosaunee.

I have seen unspeakable corruption and behavior out of men
claiming to be chiefs while loyalists chant "honor the chiefs." As
these men hide behind the banner of being "traditional" they
discriminate against some and disregard others while consolidating power,
wealth and recognition as royal families.

I could review much of the fairly recent ugly history that
would explain the mess that is now the Oneida Nation of New York and the
current power struggle over leadership, control and federal recognition in
Cayuga that involves "traditional" chiefs, their lawyers and reliance
on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Our ways? The Kaianerehkowa? Certainly
not! But one of the most blatant abuses of power today by those that claim to
be "traditional" is, indeed, in Tonawanda.

Tonawanda is a small Seneca community that claims to be
"traditional." The resident population is less than 500 with half of
those being non-Native and the majority of the Native population being
non-Tonawanda Seneca, meaning only about 20-25 percent of the residents are
"enrolled" Tonawanda Seneca. There is a relatively sizable Christian
population with notables that have historically included men like Ely Parker
who actually served as a chief on the Tonawanda Chiefs Council. While there is
one modest Longhouse and quite nice tribal offices, there is also a sizable church
within the community as well as churches attended by residents off-territory.
The contemporary notion that Tonawanda is a "traditional" community has
drawn deep lines separating people along family lines, occupations, religious
beliefs and even gender. There exists a sense of superiority for these
'traditional" leaders and their loyal followers over the vast majority of
the rest of the residents.

None of this could be more exemplified than by the current
situation where a Tonawanda Seneca business owner, out of favor with the
"chiefs," dies and despite a well documented will that clearly laid
out his intent to leave certain significant assets to his Tonawanda Seneca daughter,
has those intentions usurped by the deceased's greedy brother, mother and, at
least, certain Tonawanda chiefs. Literally, the uncle and grandmother conspired
to defraud a young woman out of her inheritance from her father and ultimately
they are assisted by corrupt chiefs to pull it off. As it stands today, both
the home, valued at over $3 million, and the businesses that have generated
significant wealth over the years, have been seized by the chiefs and it is
being done under some guise of "traditional" law or custom. The plain
and simple truth is that the daughter of the deceased has been determined
arbitrarily as undeserving of the inheritance and that is cause enough for a
corrupt and dysfunctional "government" to do as it likes against
whomever it wishes.

There is nothing in any legitimate or noble culture,
traditional or otherwise, that would deny a man the right to leave his daughter
assets that she would otherwise have the right to own or receive. And there is
nothing in the Kaianerehkowa that would remotely suggest or empower a chief to
seize an inheritance. This case is simply a theft by those that believe they
are above the people and what is decent and right.

It
will be a singular moment of reckoning when men guilty of such a crime have to
sit before all of us at a Kaianerehkowa recital knowing the abuse they have
inflicted even as that very abuse is being condemned before all. I will sit in anxious
anticipation of those days with only one hope — that they will reflect on their
actions and correct them before we all come together.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

As this column hits the press, thousands are gathering in Washington, D.C. to take a stand against the Keystone XL Pipeline. During a week that a decision was expected out of the Obama Administration on this issue, the Reject and Protect call to action will set up camp near the White House and tell the President to reject the pipeline. As it turns out, an announcement just came from the White House that the Administration has decided to kick the can on this decision for what seems like the tenth time.

Whether this decision was made to take the wind out of the sails of this demonstration or somehow is part of some other political strategy, or if it is just more D.C. dysfunction, is always hard to say and harder to get anyone to admit to. But, regardless of the decision not to make a decision, it’s important that a message about this is made loud and clear.

One of the crazy things about this whole discussion is the lack of media coverage the actual tar sands oil extraction gets. Americans and Republicans, in particular, love to keep this conversation just about a pipeline; and you can be absolutely sure that FOX News and the Tea Party right will not be rushing to the aid of any ranchers, cowboy hats or not, that stand in the way of big oil profits. When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy stakes his claim against the U.S. government — even at gunpoint under the clear threat of violence — cries of government oppression and praise to him as a patriot ring all over the political right.

But as this movement rages on — the movement that started on the Native lands in Alberta that are being raped by interests from China to Texas and, of course, a whole lot of Canada — the debate on the U.S. side continues to stay relegated to just a conversation about a pipeline. For most of us opposing this new "junkie's vein" for oil, the absence of the pipeline is simply a bottleneck to slow the environmental travesty that is tar sands oil extraction. Of course, the pipeline absolutely presents a significant environmental risk on its own and, worse yet, the entire justification sold to the American public is a lie. It's not about jobs; the pipeline will ultimately only produce about 40 permanent jobs. It's not about energy independence; it is still foreign oil. It's certainly not about securing a more politically correct supply for the good deserving people of this hemisphere; none of this "oil" is intended for American or Canadian consumption. It is all going to China.

Now don't get me wrong. Alberta, Canada, the Koch brothers and a whole lot of "Big Oil" and all those others invested in tar sands oil stand to make billions. But the American and Canadian public? Nope! Just seized land for a dangerous easement from Montana to Texas and a wasteland the size of Florida will be left in Alberta.

The pipeline will endanger the Oglala aquifer, one of the largest on the continent, and join the ranks of all the other leaking pipelines that make a train wreck of tanker cars look like a soupy puddle from a dropped ice cream cone compared to what a busted or cracked pipe can do. And make no mistake, they all do or will leak. And all those who clamor about how a new pipeline will be safer? Well, NEWSFLASH! This isn't replacing old pipes or rail or truck or even tanker — it is adding to them.

That is really the point for many of us. Beyond the lies and propaganda associated with the Keystone XL Pipeline is the plain and simple truth that this pipeline validates and facilitates the environmental travesty that is tar sands oil extraction. You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, but it's still a pig. As are all those that are unconscionably destroying what was only recently pristine land that supported a beautiful people dependent on it.

The fact that no American would ever let the destruction occurring on Native lands in Alberta to happen in their back yards is really just hypocrisy. And the fact that an American President can keep sidestepping exactly just what and where from the proposed "oil" is coming is just dishonest.

Now why do I keep quotation marks around the word "oil"? I do it because technically it's NOT oil. It's bitumen. It's worse than crude oil from an environmental standpoint and to add insult to the inevitable injury it’s because it's not even technically crude oil. There is an exemption from paying into a clean-up superfund that would normally come from crude oil passing through a pipeline in the U.S.

It’s easy to draw a line connecting Native people to environmentalism. But for us this isn't about a preference or a social or even a philosophical stance. It is about our identity and how our land defines us. I know many identify with us and share this view. But as more and more of us come together on these and other environmental issues, don't forget our place in this debate. It has now been said by many that the fight for environmental justice starts with Native people. I would suggest that it is sustained with Native people and will end with us, too. With international calls for our "free, prior and informed consent" on all issues with implications for our future, Indigenous peoples globally are gaining confidence and recognition in these and other fights. But none of us will wait for the international community to catch up. Our resistance is today and we will do it without FOX news, armed resistance or the Tea Party darlings.

Regardless of approval of this pipeline, our battle is against the destruction at the source of this issue. We will fight tar sands oil extraction however it is transported. Ultimately, our position on the issue will be more and more validated by others but until then many will label us not as Bundy patriots but as terrorists — and worse.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

During the past week I have had more
conversations about "decolonization" than I have had in my whole
life. As I mentioned in one of my Facebook conversations, I am not entirely comfortable
with the expression.

Clearly as Native people continue to
carve out our existence with the dominant societies, cultures and politics
around us, we find ourselves getting caught up in the next word, policy or
social theory of the day. Sovereignty became almost synonymous with Native rights.
Self-governance and self-determination also began rolling off the tongues of
every "tribal leader" and "Indian expert." Oh yeah, and
let's not leave out “nation-to-nation” and “government-to-government”
relations. Those were good ones.

For me, the "trust
relationship" with a complete lack of the "trust" part makes
that one problematic for me but that one was easy to call. This decolonization
thing was a little more troublesome for me. I mean, I get it and the whole
"decolonize your mind" slogan does have a nice ring to it but for me
it still didn't feel right.

I was finally able to put my finger
on it today when my good friend Kerry Hawk Lessard used University of Michigan
Associate Professor of Psychology and American Culture Joseph Gone's definition
in our discussion. Gone uses decolonization to describe “the intentional,
collective, and reflective self-examination undertaken by formerly colonized
peoples that results in shared remedial action.”

Well, there you have it. Decolonization felt to me a little
too much like the abolition movement and Gone confirmed the problem for me.
Just like abolition was all about addressing and ending the very successful
dehumanizing institution that was American slavery, decolonization is about
remediating the problems associated with "formerly colonized peoples"
as though the act of colonization was both complete and successful.

I understand that colonization is a clear and well-defined
concept, but at its core it is about claiming land. Just as the Doctrine of
Christian Discovery really had nothing to do with converting the pagans into
Christians but rather converting their land to Christendom, colonization was
less about colonizing people and more about taking their land for the
colonizer.

So having said that, I certainly acknowledge that almost all
of our lands were stolen, defrauded, claimed and/or swindled from us for THEIR
colony and most Native communities, on either side of the imaginary line (U.S./Canadian
border) are led to believe their lands are held "in trust" for them
by the colonial powers. But the keyword here is "most" — not all.

One of the little-known facts about Native people is that 70 percent
of them do not live on Native lands and most of the remaining percent that do,
live on lands that the colonizers claim to hold the title to. But that is not
the case for the Haudenosanee territories I have lived on. Although our
ancestral lands have been greatly reduced, all of the peoples of the
Haudenosaunee still retain a portion of those once vast lands and they OWN it.

The lands of which I speak are not under U.S. or state title.
And they are not "held for the use and enjoyment" of our people. Our
people OWN them. So to say it more clearly and in the context of this
discussion — our land is not part of their colony. The land we still occupy has not been colonized.

Now I am not suggesting that we are the only people who can
claim to have not been colonized but I would say that if they can't claim our
lands then they can't claim us. I will also state for the record that I have
never ascribed to the notion that the U.S. and Canada hold our lands for us. But
I will say if you view yourself among the formerly colonized peoples then the
first step you need to take is to assert your connection to your homeland.

Beyond the inability of the colonial powers to render us
landless, I maintain that there is no legal basis to claim our subjugation or
cite just when our clearly recognized sovereignty was ever transferred to them.
It is laughable that the foundation of U.S and Canadian "federal Indian
law" is still ONLY based on papal bulls from the fifteenth century. In
1823 when the U.S. codified the Doctrine of Christian Discovery into U.S. law
via Johnson v. M'Intosh, Chief Justice
John Marshall literally suggested that Native sovereignty was diminished upon
discovery. And in the wake of Marshall's legal dicta on this ruling there began
this absurd assumption that discovery could be viewed as tantamount to
conquest.

Of course, even with this weak rationale building the foundation
for the imperialistic belief in Manifest Destiny, neither the U.S. nor the state
of New York ever claimed to own the land we retained. In fact, even when
attempting to relocate the Seneca during the Removal Act era, the U.S. was
forced to include language in its offer of lands west of the Mississippi that
even those lands would never be claimed by the U.S. or incorporated into any
state (an offer that was nonetheless rejected). As late as the second half of
the nineteenth century, New York State still acknowledged in its State Judicial
Reports that Seneca lands were not part of the state, that the Seneca were not
represented in their legislature and that the state could not tax them.

I have many reasons for refusing to be considered a formerly
colonized person. I maintain that there are many of us that are among a long
line of people who have resisted and rejected subjugation and the assumption of
colonization. So excuse me for not embracing the decolonization movement. My
sovereignty is a birthright. That whole unalienable rights thing? That came
from us. The concept of seven generations doesn't just suggest that we consider
the effects of our actions on those unborn faces — it prohibits and denies any
legal and legitimate authority of anyone to sell out their future generations.

I can't decolonize. That would suggest that I was colonized
in the first place. I wasn't and I'm not.

Three years ago a couple of "Let's Talk Native..."
regulars and I made the trip to the Albany to try to get some straight answers
to a couple of simple questions. Matt Hill, Paul Delaronde and I met with New
York State Senator George Maziarz, Republican from the 62nd Senate District of
New York, to see if a State Senator could get an answer to a question that the
State's tax department refused to give us. We sat with the Senator and first
queried him on his position on Native-to-Native trade and the State's authority
over our commerce and our manufactured goods.

Senator Maziarz made it very clear where he stood on the
issues. Despite legislation that the State legislature had recently passed that
was to shut down State-licensed wholesalers from continuing a 30- year practice
of selling unstamped (untaxed) cigarettes to Native retailers, he felt strongly
that the State had no authority to interfere with Native-to-Native trade and he
was in full support of the trade we had established with Native-manufactured
product.

The problem that we encountered was that we could not get a
straight answer out of the Governor's office, the State Attorney General's
Office or out of the State's Department of Taxation and Finance clarifying the
State's legal, political or regulatory policy on Native-to-Native trade or on
Native- manufactured goods. They flat out refused to tell us.

So we figured, surely a State Senator could get us an answer.
The Senator agreed to let me work with his staff to draft a letter to Thomas
Mattox, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance requesting
clarity on the State's position and intent. While at the State Capital, I also
decided to pursue support for answers from across the political aisle and asked
State Senator Timothy Kennedy, Democrat from the 63rd Senate District, if he
would sign onto such a letter. He agreed. So now we had Senators from both
political parties pressing for a public announcement of a policy that by law
should have been clear and unambiguous in the first place rather than a military
secret.

The letter sent from Senators Maziarz and Kennedy on May 16,
2011 stated clearly that:

"It is our view that the State should not pursue an
effort to collect taxes on Native Brands because such an effort would be
contrary to the sovereign rights of the Native American Nations, and would be a
severe blow to the Native retail economy."

The letter proceeded
to make a specific and quite reasonable request.

"[W]e request that you provide clarification to us as
soon as possible and in writing. It is very important that all of the citizens
of the State of New York and their elected representatives know what the
intention of your Department is with regard to the collection of State taxes on
Native Brand cigarettes and tobacco products."

To my surprise I
learned that even the guys who are credited with making these stupid laws
couldn’t get answers about their implementation or covert exaggeration.

More than a year later
I convinced Senator Maziarz to follow up on his prior unanswered request. This
inquiry was made in light of an absolute refusal to respond to his first letter
and action from the State Attorney General attempting to stop Native
manufacturers from shipping, selling and distributing products to Native
territories. This "cease and desist" order came in the wake of a
court ruling by the New York State Supreme Court ordering the State to release
a seized truckload of Native-produced cigarettes.

Senator Maziarz on
June 27, 2012 again wrote to the Tax Commissioner:

"In my view, the recent court case acknowledges that
Native Brand cigarettes that are produced and sold on lands owned by Native
Nations constitute commerce that is Native to Native. As such these
transactions cannot (and should not) be regulated and taxed by the State of New
York. To do so would be contrary to the sovereign rights of the Native American
Nations, and have significant negative impact on the Native retail economy."

And the Senator once
again restated his request:

"Although the NYS Supreme Court case starts to provide
some direction on the status of the taxation of Native American cigarettes,
there is still much uncertainty in this area. Consequently, we request that you
provide written clarification to us as soon as possible."

As we approach three
years from the original request there is still a refusal by the State to
provide a written explanation of their policy or intent. This is not rule of
law. Hell! The lawmakers themselves can't get an answer from these
extortionists.

This week, New York
Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his new get tough policy/propaganda against cigarette
smuggling. He announced the formation of a 13-agency task force dedicated to
keeping illegal cigarettes out of the State.

“This new law-enforcement strategy will help
to crack down on these illegal cigarette sales and capture those smugglers who
seek to evade the law and rob the state of the revenue it is rightly owed,”
Cuomo said.

The problem is that
neither the mob boss nor his minions will say where the Native tobacco trade
fits into this conversation.

A recent study by a
non-partisan tax policy think tank, the Tax Foundation, revealed that almost
57% of the cigarettes consumed in New York State are brought into the state
illegally. Nothing in the Tax Foundation's report suggests any of this
percentage includes Native brands or Native sales nor does it imply that Native
sales are illegal or considered smuggling. The report clearly assigns the vast
majority of "smuggled" cigarettes to Virginia and three other low-taxed
states that do not affix tax stamps to cigarettes.

So there we have it — New
York State policies so covert that the actual lawmakers from either party are
denied access while the “Boss” chases his tail on what is real revenue leakage
and where his revenue is actually leaking to.

Use the Reaction Buttons Below the Post

If reading a post strikes a tone with you, but you're not quite ready to submit a comment, check a reaction button. Feel free to agree or disagree. If you want to hear more on the subject check "tell me more" and I'll respond on the comments page. Click oncomments to view my added comments and those others who dare or add a comment of your own. Remember, comments can be submitted anonymously.

Support the Only Native Radio Show in Western New York

"Let's Talk Native...with John Kane" is the only Native talk show of its kind. LTN is paid programming on commercial radio and is carried on one of Buffalo's premier AM stations. KB1520 established itself in the heyday of AM radio and continues to belt out the most powerful signal in Western New York. KB's 50,000 watt signal carries "Let's Talk Native..." from the Western Door of the Haudenosaunee to the Eastern Door and beyond. KB's signal is rumored to have been picked up in Europe and locations all over the Atlantic Ocean. After the live broadcasts LTN shows are posted on sites including kb1520.com, rezkast.com, wnymedia.net and, of course this site. A Google search of "Let's Talk Native" yields 5 or 6 pages of links to various shows. As I said, the show is paid programming. It relies on community support for both airtime and promotion. The show also relies on participation for both content and spreading the word. Comments and suggestions, as well as inquiries for sponsorship and advertising can be made to jmkane1220@aol.com.

If more do a little no one has to do much, so pitch in and support our only access to the mainstream media that we control.

NYS Form CG-15 for Cigarette Use Tax

The applicable New York State use tax, New York City use tax, or combined state and city use taxes are imposed on cigarettes used in the state or within the state and New York City, unless:— the cigarette tax (imposed pursuant to Tax Law, section 471) has been paid, as evidenced by the presence of the New York State or New York State and New York City joint tax stamp affixed to the package of cigarettes; or— the cigarettes being used are specifically exempted from the cigarette tax by Tax Law section 471 (governmental use by the United States, New York State, and the United Nations, and use by authorized persons purchasing from a voluntary unincorporated organization of the armed forces of the U.S.); or— the cigarettes being used are brought into New York State (or into New York State and New York City) on or in the possession of the user, and the number of cigarettes does not exceed 400 (i.e., two cartons or less of standard packages of cigarettes).

Rahnatakaias Lies about the Changes that Will Come to Washington

PACT Act a hidden pwer grab for the states

Saying You're Proud Isn't Enough

It is not enough to say you are proud to be Native and proud of your culture. By removing the dust from our past, we reveal who we really are. Honor your ancestors by carrying knowledge forward.

From Jack Weatherford's "Indian Givers"

The most consistent theme in the descriptions penned about the New World was amazement at the Indians’ personal liberty, in particular their freedom from rulers and from social classes based on ownership of property. For the first time the French and the British became aware of the possibility of living in social harmony and prosperity without the rule of a king.

Our First Covenant

"Our first and most sacred covenant is with Nature and our Mother, the Earth."

Kaneseraga

Now They Are Using Our Wampum for Their Wampum

Click the image for the story

Rate Native Pride on...

YouTube Videos of the Hearing

Remove The Dust

We have lost our way, not our ways. We have let others define us with their telling of history, their view of spirituality, their laws and their economy. Our belief systems are not lost. They are covered with ignorance, fear and shame; just dust. It is time to Remove The Dust. This is the expression our ancestors used when it was time to remind ourselves who we are. By removing the dust from our old wampums we could revisit their meanings and most of all, talk about it. We are referred to as an oral society as if that is some how primative. Our voices are the most powerful tools we have. The ability to speak and listen is the power to teach and learn. For all the writing and reading we will ever do, it would teach us nothing if we couldn't discuss it. Technology now allows us to have voices in this new medium. So let's talk. Let's teach. Let's learn.

The First Post on Native PrideNovember 17, 2008

Flying the Flag

Photo by Sireena

Quote by Dragging Canoe

"Treaties with the whites may be ok for those who are too old to hunt or fight, as for me, I have my young warriors about me and we will keep our lands."

Bridges Reopen

Bridges blocked again, this time for 5 hours

Obama Speaks Out Three Days After the OPP Attack a Peaceful Demonstration at Tyendinega

"Whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are rightfully troubled. I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen over the last few days."

Barack Obama - June 15, 2009

Yeah right! You didn't really think he was talking about us, did you? (see the June 12, 2009 post)

OPP Attack Mohawk Protesters

Loading...

-[]-[]-/\-[]-[]-

The two most recognizable flags in Indian Country: The Warrior Flag and The Hiawentha Belt Flag fly at the abandoned Canadian border facility. (click the photo for ICT article)